Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse trial


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Joethecobbler said:

More misinformation , compliments of the Marxists

'marxists'? weaker than piss, rube. but you already know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ha ha ha, Americanos and their gun nutz, your gun culture is fucked. 

The fact that a young punk can present himself at a riot, parade around with an illegal assault rifle, shoots three people - (surprise surprise) and can reasonably be expect to be acquitted on grounds

I have to say that I regard anyone with a gun on their hip or slung over their shoulder walking around in public as being a threat to my life. I now include police in this generalization; I used to gi

Posted Images

2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Imagine if KR were black and wore dreadlocks.  just imagine.

...and ran out into the Charlottesville Tiki-torch crowd. 

Like going into the lion enclosure at the zoo and claiming self-defense for slaughtering all the lions. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ModernViking said:

I have to admit that I have been watching too much of this trial, after I stumbled across this thread.
I have never, besides in movies, seen a judge so mad as in this clip.. I have no idea who is in the right here, but it was quite crazy to see this. To me it is something that would only happen in movies..

That is one mad judge :mellow:

 

 

The prosecution went down a path that is not allowed by the constitution.  It’s law school 101.  Not a single lawyer left or right defended his actions.   Then he started to question the defendant about a previous incident that the judge had already ruled inadmissible.  Again completely unethical.  Plenty of experts  felt that he was deliberately trying for a mistrial after his witnesses helped the defense on cross. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Burning Man said:

The battle may be won but the "war" is far from over.  The sad thing about it is that there IS a war going on between American citizens who seem to increasingly hate each other so much that they are willing to kill over it.  What I fear is that every incident like this rips us apart further because we can only see outcomes in terms of our ingrained political views.  

Case in point.....  I'm shocked that anyone who saw the rittenhouse video could have seen that as anything other than Self-defense.  Conversely, I'm shocked that anyone who reads the facts of the Arbery case can't come away with the conclusion that the perpetrators were racist fucks out for a good nigger lynching before breakfast.  That we are hugely divided on these facts spells doom for our Democracy Republic until we start agreeing on some basic common ground.  There are huge swaths of the US that decry the violence and looting surrounding the otherwise peaceful BLM protests and there are equally large swaths that say that the looting, burning, and destruction of property is justified to get America's attention.  

Once upon a time we were fairly united in understanding that fighting Hitler and Tojo was the right thing to do to stop them from taking over the world.  We all mostly came together to fight Communism and the USSR in the Cold War.  I think the fact that we no longer have any external enemies has allowed ourselves to turn inward and fight each other.  

Just saying.

 

 There are certainly those in the media dedicating themselves to creating angst, but IMO mostly so they can pocket $$ for click hits. But this aspect of the issue is fading.  

The BLM protests, when was the last one? Some time ago, and the incidents of cops shooting blacks for making a twitch coming to light have decreased. It appears the cops have been made aware their ROE needed tweeking.  And they most definitely did. The Grossman school of instilling a force protection-first attitude has lost a lot of fans.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, quod umbra said:

Okay, thanks.

So why on God's green Earth is young Mr. Rittenhouse storing his gun at a friend's house?
AND
Why on God's green Earth did that "adult" remove the weapons from the gun safe?

JB I have barely followed this trial or thread, so I may not be 100% up to speed. I get that the owner of the house where the guns were stored felt they may need to defend the property......which in of itself is a very sad statement on where we are at in America...... but if that is the case, why did that adult allow the two boys to leave the house with loaded weapons?

Not sure I recognize what our country has become. 

The gun was stored in WI because IT was bought in WI and Kyle was to young to have it in IL

The gun safe was in the garage and the owner was worried about rioters breaking into the safe so he moved them to the basement. 
I do not recall testimony that the owner of the gun safe, I believe the friends uncle was there when the two friends both took their guns to protect the car lots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark K said:

 There are certainly those in the media dedicating themselves to creating angst, but IMO mostly so they can pocket $$ for click hits. But this aspect of the issue is fading.  

The BLM protests, when was the last one? Some time ago, and the incidents of cops shooting blacks for making a twitch coming to light have decreased. It appears the cops have been made aware their ROE needed tweeking.  And they most definitely did. The Grossman school of instilling a force protection-first attitude has lost a lot of fans.   

Agreed. Hopefully the police continue to evolve.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Okay, thanks.

So why on God's green Earth is young Mr. Rittenhouse storing his gun at a friend's house?
AND
Why on God's green Earth did that "adult" remove the weapons from the gun safe?

JB I have barely followed this trial or thread, so I may not be 100% up to speed. I get that the owner of the house where the guns were stored felt they may need to defend the property......which in of itself is a very sad statement on where we are at in America...... but if that is the case, why did that adult allow the two boys to leave the house with loaded weapons?

Not sure I recognize what our country has become. 

You're on the right path.  The "adult" has been charged.  On the other point, it's even better.. The kid wasn't there to protect "their" property, get this, he chose a random car lot to defend.  No previous connection, they didn't ask him or pay him. He just decided that was the front lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

You're on the right path.  The "adult" has been charged.  On the other point, it's even better.. The kid wasn't there to protect "their" property, get this, he chose a random car lot to defend.  No previous connection, they didn't ask him or pay him. He just decided that was the front lines.

Liar - owner of the car lot is in shorts 

Also a text to the owner, who admitted he gave Kyle his cell # during the day, from Kyle - that he and his friends would be there that night.  

A0205F53-4460-439B-AF56-5FA2DA0F47E2.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Liar - owner of the car lot is in shorts 

Also a text to the owner, who admitted he gave Kyle his cell # during the day, from Kyle - that he and his friends would be there that night.  

A0205F53-4460-439B-AF56-5FA2DA0F47E2.jpeg

I never said he didn't meet him that day.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

I never said he didn't meet him that day.  

Ok. I’ll go with bullshitter  
 

You claimed he picked a random lot Lie

You claimed there was no previous connection again a lie

One more fact the person who asked Kyle to come to that particular car lot was a former employee of, you guessed it those owners and that lot   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Ok. I’ll go with bullshitter  
 

You claimed he picked a random lot Lie

You claimed there was no previous connection again a lie

One more fact the person who asked Kyle to come to that particular car lot was a former employee of, you guessed it those owners and that lot   

 

 

And with that and your last few posts, you have successfully nailed the case that the victims family will add the car lot people to their civil case against the MN Kenosha police department for wrongful death.  Excellent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

And with that and your last few posts, you have successfully nailed the case that the victims family will add the car lot people to their civil case against the MN Kenosha police department for wrongful death.  Excellent. 

And you finally figured out why the car lot people were lying on the stand.   It took you long enough 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Imagine if KR were black and wore dreadlocks.  just imagine.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but it’s pretty damn obvious how you got sucked into a cult. Apparently your new leaders do no wrong. It’s a little sad seeing someone toe the line so fanatically. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

The prosecution went down a path that is not allowed by the constitution.  It’s law school 101.  Not a single lawyer left or right defended his actions.   Then he started to question the defendant about a previous incident that the judge had already ruled inadmissible.  Again completely unethical.  Plenty of experts  felt that he was deliberately trying for a mistrial after his witnesses helped the defense on cross. 

I admit I am no expert, not even living in the U.S. but are you sure that it is such a clear case here?
The incident in question happened on the same night, maybe even minutes before he killed another person. So in my mind, it seems relevant to the case, and the self defense claim.

I would be surprised if this is a very clear ruling, that no expert in the field would challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Surfer7 said:

Your reasoning is flawed. You apparently live in a bizzaro

 

Your reasoning is faulty. You apparently live in a world of bizzarro absolutes. 

It is common for those knowing they have a weak position to resort to personal insults. Look in the mirror.

Just a friendly note to let you know that it is not necessary to include your IQ along with your username.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A sample of 32,315 pro-Rittenhouse hashtag tweets, Nov 19-20, showed 29,609 with disabled geolocation

Divide & conquer: A sample of 32,315 pro-Rittenhouse hashtag tweets, Nov 19-20, showed 29,609 with disabled geolocation. Of those, 17,701 were listed as “foreign”, but a deep scrub revealed most of those were in Russia, China, and the EU. @Tara_Writer 
@TAPSTRIMEDIA 
#Rittenhouse 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

 

A sample of 32,315 pro-Rittenhouse hashtag tweets, Nov 19-20, showed 29,609 with disabled geolocation

Divide & conquer: A sample of 32,315 pro-Rittenhouse hashtag tweets, Nov 19-20, showed 29,609 with disabled geolocation. Of those, 17,701 were listed as “foreign”, but a deep scrub revealed most of those were in Russia, China, and the EU. @Tara_Writer 
@TAPSTRIMEDIA 
#Rittenhouse 

No surprise there, that’s how pizzagate and Pepe the frog infected the hearts and minds of these Jokers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Well they'll pay for it, as will the police.  Everybody but the kid lose big.

America most of all.

It's incredible to thinking people around the world that there are so many Americans who support the idea of a teenage vigilante shooting and killing people on the street.

Not to mention the fact that the American legal system approves of it.

Something happened to America.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quod umbra said:
8 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Wait.  What?  Demanding rights for ALL citizens was not "justified"?

You just wish those darkies would be put back in their place. 

But, you haven't the balls to come out and say it.

Wow.

Did you miss the dozen or so times I told the story of my Father being raised by a Black couple?

I think there are mechanisms in society for expressing  one's distress, disillusionment, dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement. Those methods of recourse do not include looting, razing, burning and waging war on the police.
If you think those are appropriate responses you should not be teaching.

I can only go by what you write - 

9 hours ago, quod umbra said:


Back in the late 60's and 70's we had a considerable amount of unrest. Between The Civil Rights Movement and Viet Nam, Stop The War Movement, one could understand the level of discontent..... not really justified, but understandable.

 

I guess you're going to say that not what you wrote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BravoBravo said:

I missed the car lot testimony, what did they lie about? 

Everything, claimed they never gave permission,  the first brother claimed he didn’t work there.  Second brother claimed he was the inventory manager but wasn’t paid.  Both claimed they didn’t give permission despite other credible testimony that they did.  Both prosecution and the defense were frustrated with their no answers and out right claims of “I don’t remember”  that despite video and written evidence. 
The pic I posted proved that they lied when they claimed they didn’t even know there were armed men on their lot.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ModernViking said:

I admit I am no expert, not even living in the U.S. but are you sure that it is such a clear case here?
The incident in question happened on the same night, maybe even minutes before he killed another person. So in my mind, it seems relevant to the case, and the self defense claim.

I would be surprised if this is a very clear ruling, that no expert in the field would challenge.

It did not just happen it was earlier in the year.   It was a video of Kyle watching looters rob a store and commenting he wishes he had his AR.  As the judge rightly pointed out thoughts are not crimes.  Besides who hasn’t seen a crime and thought If I was a cop…   Regardless once a judge rules it’s not admissible it’s not admissible.  If you think something changed you bring it to the judge,  outside the jury and ask for a ruling.   You do not try and bring it in without permission.  Completely unethical and he knew it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Fuck shots fired at a Christmas parade in Waukesha Wi. Probably wrong spelling.  
edit red car/truck drive through crowd shots may have been fired at vehicle 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Gunz & shooting, more = better, nyet?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Gunz & shooting, more = better, nyet?

- DSK

Of course it’s a bad thing you fucking asshole. 
I usually don’t say this but you deserve to have a boot put so far up your ass that you can scrape the polish off your teeth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Of course it’s a bad thing you fucking asshole. 
I usually don’t say this but you deserve to have a boot put so far up your ass that you can scrape the polish off your teeth. 

Not really.

Just confirming, as if it were needed,  that you only approve of shooting when it's liberals and probable Democrats. You ask for it, you get it.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I don't see any news reports.  Am I missing something?  Like, is Franklin a satirist, or something?

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/17/1046879620/protester-shot-by-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-wisconsin-jacob-blake

Its from about a month ago.

"Gaige Grosskreutz, who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during racial justice protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin last year, is suing the city, the county and several law enforcement officers, claiming they condoned the efforts of white nationalists to violently dispel demonstrators protesting a police shooting."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not really.

Just confirming, as if it were needed,  that you only approve of shooting when it's liberals and probable Democrats. You ask for it, you get it.

- DSK

Bend over I’ve got a size 12 I just polished. You are one sick fuck to think anyone would approve of people being mowed down at a holiday parade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Burning Man said:

If you don't think the KR thing was political, then why did you bother to post here endlessly.  You're full of shit and only want to change the convo.

I think this topic is extremely political.  Not for the usual race baiting, but for the obvious 2A implications and the laws surrounding self defense. 

In addition, had the three dudes he shot were un-white in the exact same circumstances and actions taken.... this entire thing would have taken a massively different turn.  If he had been acquitted of shooting 3 black rioters and killing two - even if everyone's actions were absolutely identical - not only would Kenosha be burning right now, but the rest of the country would be ablaze as well.  And that right there is a large part of what is wrong with our society.

If you would’ve paid attention, you’d see I was saying Kyle would get off based on the law. And yes, laws are political, and I think that absolving people of all responsibility when their actions lead to death is wrong. You can’t convince me otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

It's incredible to thinking people around the world that there are so many Americans who support the idea of a teenage vigilante shooting and killing people on the street.

Not to mention the fact that the American legal system approves of it.

Something happened to America.

IF he was a vigilante then why didn't the prosecution make that case and prove it?

What is your basis for stating that the American legal system approves of vigilantes? They are illegal in all 50 states.

You are right that "Something happened to America". Ideas like 'defund the police', liberal run cities where rioting and looting and mayhem are allowed to occur unchecked. In California they are now 'allowing' stores to be looted of stuff worth under $1000 with no police action to be taken. There's more but the above is enough to make me want to puke.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

Ok. You define vigilante for us.

Why? Clearly the prosecutor would have added those charges if they applied.  Perhaps as a self proclaimed expert on the definition of vigilante could you tell us how you think Kyle Rittenhouse’s actions fit the definition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Why? Clearly the prosecutor would have added those charges if they applied.  Perhaps as a self proclaimed expert on the definition of vigilante could you tell us how you think Kyle Rittenhouse’s actions fit the definition. 

I wasn't talking to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Clearly Afraid to answer the question,  classic dodge.  

You guys are insisting that Rittenhouse wasn't a vigilante.

So. Define vigilante for us.

You cant say something isn't something unless you know what that something is. So Define it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ShortForBob said:

You guys are insisting that Rittenhouse wasn't a vigilante.

So. Define vigilante for us.

You cant say something isn't something unless you know what that something is. So Define it.

You want us to prove a negative.  I’m confident he was not acting like a vigilante.  It’s up to you as someone claiming he was, to layout specific actions you feel he took that shows he was acting as a vigilante.   Your turn 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A person who takes it upon themselves to mete out justice, not neccesarilly the law, as they see fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Veddy Interestink

Kyle Rittenhouse Tells Tucker Carlson He's 'Not a Racist Person' and Supports BLM

Kyle Rittenhouse was interviewed by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, his first media appearance since he was found not guilty of all five charges against him in his murder trial. In a clip from that interview released by Fox News, Rittenhouse insisted that his actions “had nothing to do with race,” and expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement and peaceful demonstrations. 

~ snip ~ 

Mark Richards, one of Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that he “didn’t approve of it” and “threw [the film crew] out of the room several times,” but he was “not always the boss” on decisions like that, apparently driven in part by the effort to crowdfund Rittenhouse’s legal defense. 

In the clip that aired on Fox News on Sunday, Rittenhouse responds to critics who accused him of acting out of some kind of racial animus. Multiple commentators on MSNBC, for example, have called Rittenhouse a racist or White supremacist and MSNBC host Tiffany Cross called him a “little murderous White supremacist” on Sunday. 

~ snip ~ 

“I’m not a racist person,” Rittenhouse said. “I support the BLM movement. I support peacefully demonstrating.” 

~ snip ~

Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/kyle-rittenhouse-tells-tucker-carlson-hes-not-a-racist-person-and-supports-blm-this-case-has-nothing-to-do-with-race/ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

A person who takes it upon themselves to mete out justice, not neccesarilly the law, as they see fit.

Ok you have now described the people he shot.   Now what did he do,that fits that description.   What justice did he seek?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Bend over I’ve got a size 12 I just polished. You are one sick fuck to think anyone would approve of people being mowed down at a holiday parade. 

You're the one claiming that. I just asked a question.

You hate questions, don't you? You think hatred gives you power, don't you?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of vigilante

 

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
 
(Courtesy of Mirriam-Wester)
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Ok you have now described the people he shot.   Now what did he do,that fits that description.   What justice did he seek?

No, Sparky.... I described Kyle Rittenhouse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

Definition of vigilante

 

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
 
(Courtesy of Mirriam-Wester)

Nope not buying it.  I saw nothing Kyle did as replacing law enforcement.  He certainly didn’t make any efforts to punish anyone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

No, Sparky.... I described Kyle Rittenhouse.

At no point did he act like a vigilante.   The “not guilty of Self defense” decisions eliminates any claim to his acting as a vigilante. The only people that tried to take the law into their own hands were those that chased him.  Unless of course you think they were thugs chasing him down to administer a beating.  Like I said earlier you can’t have it both ways.  Vigilantes or thugs. Maybe both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, roundthebuoys said:

Well he wasn’t charged with being a vigilante so he must not be one.  Conversely, the car lot guys weren’t charged with perjury but they definitely lied under oath.  The world according to QJoker.

Qjoker?   How quaint

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Another lie.  You do know the trial is available on YOUTUBE.  Maybe you should watch it before making more false statements.  

I don’t need the trial.  It’s over.  This is real life.  Where exactly did he plan to put the weapon while rendering aid?  Or is he a one handed medic?  Or on his back in a hostile situation? On the ground next to him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he apply medical aid to the fellow he maimed for life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've become that rarest of all beasts due to this thread. A person who has had his opinion changed by reading stuff on the internet.

After watching and reading more about the trial, and bouncing the ideas off my tame criminal prosecution lawyer, I actually think not guilty was the legally correct verdict.

So there you go, 33 pages of blather did have an impact.

 

Of course, I also think that the laws of WI, which made this possible, are completely inept, and you should sort this shit out before large swathes of your country revert to frontier 'justice'. It boggles my mind that you let people too young and irresponsible to vote or drink, roam populated areas with a semi auto. And that's coming from someone who did have a (smaller calibre) semi auto at the same age. But I can't fathom what would have happened to me if I'd ever taken it into town, I copped hell if there was ever anything or one within a mile down range from anything I was shooting at.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

 

A sample of 32,315 pro-Rittenhouse hashtag tweets, Nov 19-20, showed 29,609 with disabled geolocation

Divide & conquer: A sample of 32,315 pro-Rittenhouse hashtag tweets, Nov 19-20, showed 29,609 with disabled geolocation. Of those, 17,701 were listed as “foreign”, but a deep scrub revealed most of those were in Russia, China, and the EU. @Tara_Writer 
@TAPSTRIMEDIA 
#Rittenhouse 

And Joker and his elk ate it all. Hook line and sinker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Se7en said:

I think I've become that rarest of all beasts due to this thread. A person who has had his opinion changed by reading stuff on the internet.

After watching and reading more about the trial, and bouncing the ideas off my tame criminal prosecution lawyer, I actually think not guilty was the legally correct verdict.

So there you go, 33 pages of blather did have an impact.

 

Of course, I also think that the laws of WI, which made this possible, are completely inept, and you should sort this shit out before large swathes of your country revert to frontier 'justice'. It boggles my mind that you let people too young and irresponsible to vote or drink, roam populated areas with a semi auto. And that's coming from someone who did have a (smaller calibre) semi auto at the same age. But I can't fathom what would have happened to me if I'd ever taken it into town, I copped hell if there was ever anything or one within a mile down range from anything I was shooting at.

yep

 

 

May be an image of text that says '"I jumped the fence into the polar bear enclosure at the zoo, then had to kill all the polar bears in self- defense".'

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Se7en said:

I think I've become that rarest of all beasts due to this thread. A person who has had his opinion changed by reading stuff on the internet.

After watching and reading more about the trial, and bouncing the ideas off my tame criminal prosecution lawyer, I actually think not guilty was the legally correct verdict.

So there you go, 33 pages of blather did have an impact.

 

Of course, I also think that the laws of WI, which made this possible, are completely inept, and you should sort this shit out before large swathes of your country revert to frontier 'justice'. It boggles my mind that you let people too young and irresponsible to vote or drink, roam populated areas with a semi auto. And that's coming from someone who did have a (smaller calibre) semi auto at the same age. But I can't fathom what would have happened to me if I'd ever taken it into town, I copped hell if there was ever anything or one within a mile down range from anything I was shooting at.

This is how most rational people think.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

You want us to prove a negative.    It’s up to you as someone claiming he was, to layout specific actions you feel he took that shows he was acting as a vigilante.   Your turn 

i dont want you to prove anything. i simply want you to define in you're own words what a vigilante is or what a vigilante "acts like"

it's not a trick question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Se7en said:

I think I've become that rarest of all beasts due to this thread. A person who has had his opinion changed by reading stuff on the internet.

After watching and reading more about the trial, and bouncing the ideas off my tame criminal prosecution lawyer, I actually think not guilty was the legally correct verdict.

So there you go, 33 pages of blather did have an impact.

 

Of course, I also think that the laws of WI, which made this possible, are completely inept, and you should sort this shit out before large swathes of your country revert to frontier 'justice'. It boggles my mind that you let people too young and irresponsible to vote or drink, roam populated areas with a semi auto. And that's coming from someone who did have a (smaller calibre) semi auto at the same age. But I can't fathom what would have happened to me if I'd ever taken it into town, I copped hell if there was ever anything or one within a mile down range from anything I was shooting at.

The reasonable man's reasoning.

(or woman's) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Surfer7 said:

IF he was a vigilante then why didn't the prosecution make that case and prove it?

What is your basis for stating that the American legal system approves of vigilantes? They are illegal in all 50 states.

You are right that "Something happened to America". Ideas like 'defund the police', liberal run cities where rioting and looting and mayhem are allowed to occur unchecked. In California they are now 'allowing' stores to be looted of stuff worth under $1000 with no police action to be taken. There's more but the above is enough to make me want to puke.

the above is enough to make me want to puke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

The reasonable man's reasoning.

(or woman's) 

Not at all.

All progress depends on the unreasonable man. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself" - GBS

The US need some unreasonable men to decide they don't accept their current internal divide and false mythology worship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Se7en said:

Not at all.

All progress depends on the unreasonable man. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself" - GBS

The US need some unreasonable men to decide they don't accept their current internal divide and false mythology worship.

I would watch a video of you being unreasonable in 40 knots.

Reefing is for pussies, hey?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I would watch a video of you being unreasonable in 40 knots.

Reefing is for pussies, hey?

Why do you work so hard at being a cunt?

You've got your bite, are you going to hide the post now? Spineless fuck that you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I would watch a video of you being unreasonable in 40 knots.

Reefing is for pussies, hey?

non sequiters a hobby of yours?

You act like you know me- if that's the case then I really doubt you'd have ever heard me suggesting that reefing was a bad idea. Only time I recall deliberately sailing in 40 knots is on a windsurfer with about a 4m sail - no idea if there is any video. A 4m sail probably counts as reefed I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

Well he wasn’t charged with being a vigilante so he must not be one.  Conversely, the car lot guys weren’t charged with perjury but they definitely lied under oath.  The world according to QJoker.

He's picking up where Dog left off. Except that he gets a lot more emotional than Dog ever did.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Monkey said:

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but it’s pretty damn obvious how you got sucked into a cult. Apparently your new leaders do no wrong. It’s a little sad seeing someone toe the line so fanatically. 

When I share details about my personal life it is to illustrate some point or lesson that I have learned in order to help others. So what happened to me over 40 years ago was a big lesson - you can fool me but you have to be pretty damn good. Like incredibly good - not Trump good because he is so bad that only desperate people fall for it.  I don't have any new leaders and I am not fanatic about anything.  I also have come to understand that when people have become brainwashed there is little I can do so consider this response the limit to my efforts.

Best of luck, hope some enlightenment eventually comes your way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Se7en said:

I think I've become that rarest of all beasts due to this thread. A person who has had his opinion changed by reading stuff on the internet.

After watching and reading more about the trial, and bouncing the ideas off my tame criminal prosecution lawyer, I actually think not guilty was the legally correct verdict.

So there you go, 33 pages of blather did have an impact.

 

Of course, I also think that the laws of WI, which made this possible, are completely inept, and you should sort this shit out before large swathes of your country revert to frontier 'justice'. It boggles my mind that you let people too young and irresponsible to vote or drink, roam populated areas with a semi auto. And that's coming from someone who did have a (smaller calibre) semi auto at the same age. But I can't fathom what would have happened to me if I'd ever taken it into town, I copped hell if there was ever anything or one within a mile down range from anything I was shooting at.

Well put. Laws need to be changed for sure, lest we see an outbreak of premeditated self defense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tweet

 
See new Tweets

Conversation

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Replying to
This is Chrystul Kizer of Kenosha, WI. In 2018 at the age of 17, she shot and killed the man that held her captive and sexually abused her for over a year then was found guilty of 1st degree murder. The difference

 

 

image.thumb.png.bbe7a2e64654efa9212392c73fa3fd74.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In California they are now 'allowing' stores to be looted of stuff worth under $1000 with no police action to be taken.

Another fucking lie by a sock/shill/retarded Nazi......     Not one true thing said.    LIES LIES LIES yeah -TT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Surfer7 said:

Exactly what laws "need to be changed"? Change them in what way?

Hold people accountable for things like bringing guns to a riot. That sort of thing.

instigation should not give you the same rights of self defense is another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't get my head around chasing down a dude with an AR-15!?

WTF?

 

"I think I'll chase down that armed guy and hit him with my skate board!" 

"I'm going to chase you down and take your gun with my bare hands!"

Darwin...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites